DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a method.
Group II, claim 12, drawn to an apparatus.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding “special” technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups share the technical feature of:
A . . . processing . . . substrate . . . comprising:
. . . performing a liquid treatment on the substrate . . . liquid treater to wet an upper surface of the substrate;
. . . transferring the substrate with the wet upper surface from the liquid treater to a supercritical treater; and
. . . treating the substrate with the wet upper surface with a supercritical fluid in the supercritical treater,
wherein, when the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate
this shared feature is not a “special” technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of JUNG et al. (US PGPUB 20220305530). JUNG teaches a method of processing a substrate (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0008-10, 0075, 0085, Figs. 4-5). JUNG’s method (see Figs. 4-5, ¶¶ 0075, 0085) comprising:
a liquid treatment operation (liquid treatment step S100 in Figs. 4-5) of performing a liquid treatment on the substrate (substrate W) in a liquid treater (first process chamber 400) to wet an upper surface of the substrate (see ¶ 0076);
a transfer operation (transfer step S400 in Figs. 4-5) of transferring the substrate with the wet upper surface (see ¶ 0077, a liquid remains on substrate W) from the liquid treater to a supercritical treater (see ¶ 0077, from chamber 400 to chamber 500); and
a supercritical treatment operation (drying step S500 in Figs. 4-5) of treating the substrate with the wet upper surface (see ¶¶ 0077-78) with a supercritical fluid in the supercritical treater (see ¶ 0078, drying with supercritical CO2 in second process chamber 500).
JUNG teaches that: when the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater (see abstract, ¶¶ 0010, 0030, 0080-81, 0093, when substrate cannot be transferred to chamber 500), the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate (see abstract, ¶¶ 0010, 0014, 0030, 0081, 0083, 0089-91, step S240 in Fig. 4, steps S340–S380 in Fig. 5, a liquid is supplied to the substrate). The liquid is supplied to the substrate to prevent pattern collapse (see ¶¶ 0007, 0030).
During a telephone conversation with ROSE MOLLER-JACOBS on 7/22/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. See MPEP § 2181.I. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“liquid treater” in claims 1-2. The word “treater” means one that treats (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treater).
“supercritical treater” in claims 1-9 & 11. The word “treater” means one that treats (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“liquid treater” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a chamber having a nozzle (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0024, 0035-37, Fig. 3), and equivalents thereof.
“supercritical treater” is interpreted as requiring the structure(s) of a chamber having a supply port (see Spec. at ¶¶ 0024, 0045-47, Fig. 4), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 recites “a project…is completed” but Claim 3 recites “the project is finished.” Applicant should pick one word (“completed” or “finished”) and use it consistently.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites two limitations that appear to conflict with each other:
“a transfer operation of transferring the substrate with the wet upper surface from the liquid treater to a supercritical treater” (line 4-5);
“when the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate” (line 8-10).
It’s unclear whether or not the claimed method still requires transferring the substrate with the wet upper surface from the liquid treater to a supercritical treater, if the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state (i.e., the substrate cannot be transferred to the supercritical treater). Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 requires the following:
“a liquid treatment operation of performing a liquid treatment on the substrate in a liquid treater to wet an upper surface of the substrate” (as recited in Claim 1 line 2-3);
“the liquid treatment operation is performed in each of the plurality of liquid treaters” (as recited in Claim 2 line 3-4)
Because the liquid treatment operation is performed on one substrate (as recited in Claim 1) and the liquid treatment operation is performed in a plurality of liquid treaters (as recited in Claim 2), it’s unclear how many substrates are being treated in Claim 2. In particular, it’s unclear whether (1) the plurality of liquid treaters treat a total of one substrate (i.e., the same substrate is sequentially treated by the plurality of liquid treaters); or (2) the plurality of liquid treaters treat a plurality of substrates, each liquid treater treating its own respective substrate selected from the plurality of substrates. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 requires the following:
“a supercritical treatment operation of treating the substrate with the wet upper surface with a supercritical fluid in the supercritical treater” (as recited in Claim 1 line 6-7);
“the supercritical treatment operation is performed in each of the plurality of supercritical treaters” (as recited in Claim 2 line 6-7)
Because the supercritical treatment operation is performed on one substrate (as recited in Claim 1) and the supercritical treatment operation is performed in a plurality of supercritical treaters (as recited in Claim 2), it’s unclear how many substrates are being treated in Claim 2. In particular, it’s unclear whether (1) the plurality of supercritical treaters treat a total of one substrate (i.e., the same substrate is sequentially treated by the plurality of supercritical treaters); or (2) the plurality of supercritical treaters treat a plurality of substrates, each supercritical treater treating its own respective substrate selected from the plurality of substrates. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites on pg. 4 lines 1-3:
wherein, when the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate until a project to which the substrate belongs is completed.
First, it’s unclear how many substrates are being treated in Claim 2. If a plurality of substrates are being treated, it’s also unclear which particular substrate out of the plurality of substrates is considered “the” substrate.
Second, because Claim 2 requires a plurality of supercritical treaters (see line 5), it’s unclear which particular supercritical treater out of the plurality of supercritical treaters is considered “the” supercritical treater.
Third, because Claim 2 requires a plurality of liquid treaters, wherein each treater performs a liquid treatment operation (see line 1-4), Claim 2 also requires a plurality of liquid treatment operations. Thus, it’s unclear which particular liquid treatment operation out of the plurality of liquid treatment operations is considered “the” liquid treatment operation.
Claim 3 recites “the substrate” at line 2, line 4, and line 5. First, it’s unclear how many substrates are being treated. If a plurality of substrates are being treated, it’s also unclear which particular substrate out of the plurality of substrates is considered “the” substrate.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “the substrate transferred to the first supercritical treater is used as a warning substrate in a subsequent treatment.” It’s unclear what this phrase means. First, it’s unclear what is meant by “warning substrate.” Second, it’s unclear what action is required by the phrase. Third, it’s unclear the “subsequent treatment” is subsequent to what? Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “when the transfer of the substrate to the supercritical treater is determined to be possible, the liquid treatment operation is performed” at line 1-3. It’s unclear:
which “liquid treatment operation” from Claim 1 is being recited in Claim 7, i.e., what is the scope of “the liquid treatment operation” in Claim 7 in comparison to Claim 1.
what is the timing of the condition precedent “when the transfer of the substrate to the supercritical treater is determined to be possible.”
First, Claim 1 recites “a liquid treatment operation” at line 2 and “the liquid treatment operation continues” at line 9. Thus, it’s unclear whether “the liquid treatment operation” in Claim 7 refers back to “a liquid treatment operation” of Claim 1 line 2, or “the liquid treatment operation continues” of Claim 1 line 9. In other words, what is the scope of “the liquid treatment operation” in Claim 7 in comparison to Claim 1? Clarification is requested.
Second, what is the timing of the condition precedent “when the transfer of the substrate to the supercritical treater is determined to be possible”? Does the condition precedent (as recited in Claim 7) occur before “a liquid treatment operation” of Claim 1 line 2? After “a liquid treatment operation” of Claim 1 line 2 and before “the liquid treatment operation continues” of Claim 1 line 9? After “the liquid treatment operation continues” of Claim 1 line 9? Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites “when the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate is continuously performed in the intermittent manner” at line 1-2. The words “continuously” and “intermittent” are alternatives (see Spec. at ¶ 0087). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. Clarification is requested.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a claim rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JUNG et al. (US PGPUB 20220305530).
Regarding Claim 1, JUNG teaches a method of processing a substrate (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0008-10, 0075, 0085, Figs. 4-5). JUNG teaches: a liquid treater (first process chamber 400 having nozzles therein, see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶ 0060-62); a transferer (transfer unit 300, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0054); a supercritical treater (second process chamber 500 having one or more supply ports therein, see Figs. 1 & 3, ¶¶ 0069-70).
JUNG’s method (see Figs. 4-5, ¶¶ 0075, 0085) comprising:
a liquid treatment operation (liquid treatment step S100 in Figs. 4-5) of performing a liquid treatment on the substrate (substrate W) in a liquid treater (first process chamber 400) to wet an upper surface of the substrate (see ¶ 0076);
a transfer operation (transfer step S400 in Figs. 4-5) of transferring the substrate with the wet upper surface (see ¶ 0077, a liquid remains on substrate W) from the liquid treater to a supercritical treater (see ¶ 0077, from chamber 400 to chamber 500); and
a supercritical treatment operation (drying step S500 in Figs. 4-5) of treating the substrate with the wet upper surface (see ¶¶ 0077-78) with a supercritical fluid in the supercritical treater (see ¶ 0078, drying the substrate with supercritical CO2 in second process chamber 500).
The remaining claim language— “wherein, when the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate”—is interpreted as a contingent limitation, i.e., not a requisite step of the claimed method. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP § 2111.04.II. In this case, the claim does not require the condition precedent (i.e., “the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state…”) to be met, which means the step of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate” is not required by the claim.
Although the abovementioned claim language is contingent (i.e., not required by the claimed method), JUNG still teaches that: when the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater (see abstract, ¶¶ 0010, 0030, 0080-81, 0093, when substrate cannot be transferred to chamber 500), the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate (see abstract, ¶¶ 0010, 0014, 0030, 0081, 0083, 0089-91, step S240 in Fig. 4, steps S340–S380 in Fig. 5). The liquid is supplied to the substrate to prevent pattern collapse (see ¶¶ 0007, 0030).
Regarding Claim 5, JUNG teaches the method of claim 1.
The claim language— “wherein, when the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate for a time period from a start to a stop of the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate”—is interpreted as a contingent limitation, i.e., not a requisite step of the claimed method. See MPEP § 2111.04.II. In this case, the claim does not require the condition precedent (i.e., “the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state …”) to be met, which means the step of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate for a time period from a start to a stop of the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate” is not required by the claim.
Although the abovementioned claim language is contingent (i.e., not required by the claimed method), JUNG still teaches that: when the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater (as explained above), the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate (as explained above) for a time period from a start to a stop of the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate (see ¶¶ 0083-84, 0089-92, the liquid-supplying step has a start and a finish).
Regarding Claim 6, JUNG teaches the method of claim 1. JUNG teaches the supply of the processing liquid is stopped (see ¶¶ 0083-84, 0092).
As explained above, the claim language of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate” is not a requisite step of the claimed method, which means the claim language of “after the supply of the processing liquid is stopped” is also not a requisite step of the claimed method.
Likewise, the claim language— “when the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation resumes the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate”—is interpreted as a contingent limitation, i.e., not a requisite step of the claimed method. See MPEP § 2111.04.II. In this case, the claim does not require the condition precedent (i.e., “the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state …”) to be met, which means the step of “the liquid treatment operation resumes the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate” is not required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, JUNG teaches the method of claim 1.
The claim language— “wherein, when the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate for a given period of time and stops the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate after the given period of time”—is interpreted as a contingent limitation, i.e., not a requisite step of the claimed method. See MPEP § 2111.04.II. In this case, the claim does not require the condition precedent (i.e., “the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state …”) to be met, which means the step of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate for a given period of time and stops the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate after the given period of time” is not required by the claim.
Although the abovementioned claim language is contingent (i.e., not required by the claimed method), JUNG still teaches that: when the substrate is determined to be in an untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater (as explained above), the liquid treatment operation continues to supply a processing liquid to the substrate (as explained above) for a given period of time and stops the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate after the given period of time (see ¶¶ 0083-84, 0089-92, the liquid-supplying step has a start and a finish).
Regarding Claim 9, JUNG teaches the method of claim 1. The claim language— “wherein when the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate in an intermittent manner”—is interpreted as a contingent limitation, i.e., not a requisite step of the claimed method. See MPEP § 2111.04.II. In this case, the claim does not require the condition precedent (i.e., “the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state …”) to be met, which means the step of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate in an intermittent manner” is not required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, JUNG teaches the method of claim 9.
As explained above, the claim language of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate in an intermittent manner” is not a requisite step of the claimed method, which means the claim language of “the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate is continuously performed in the intermittent manner” is also not a requisite step of the claimed method.
Likewise, the claim language— “wherein, when the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate is continuously performed in the intermittent manner, a time period during which the supply of the processing liquid to the substrate is stopped corresponds to a time period during which an amount of the processing liquid volatilized from the upper surface of the substrate becomes smaller than an amount of a liquid film on the upper surface of the substrate”—is interpreted as contingent, i.e., not a requisite step. See MPEP § 2111.04.II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG.
Regarding Claim 2, JUNG teaches the method of claim 1. JUNG teaches that: the liquid treater includes a plurality of liquid treaters (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0056, a plurality of first process chambers 400); and the supercritical treater includes a plurality of supercritical treaters (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0056, a plurality of second process chambers 500).
Although JUNG does not explicitly teach “the liquid treatment operation is performed in each of the plurality of liquid treaters” and “the supercritical treatment operation is performed in each of the plurality of supercritical treaters,” such features are implicitly taught or at least reasonably expected because JUNG teaches the following:
the substrate processing apparatus comprises a plurality of liquid treaters and a plurality of supercritical treaters (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0056);
a plurality of substrates are loaded into said apparatus for treatment (see ¶ 0053);
it’s important to increase/maximize throughput (see ¶¶ 0007, 0031, 0083, 0092, 0096).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand or reasonably expect that each of the liquid treaters is used for liquid treatment operation and each of the supercritical treaters is used for supercritical treatment operation.
Alternatively, if JUNG does not clearly envisage “the liquid treatment operation is performed in each of the plurality of liquid treaters” and “the supercritical treatment operation is performed in each of the plurality of supercritical treaters,” it still would’ve been obvious to do so because one skilled in the art would’ve been motivated to increase/maximize throughput.
The remaining claim language— “wherein, when the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state with respect to the supercritical treater, the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate until a project to which the substrate belongs is completed”—is interpreted as a contingent limitation, i.e., not a requisite step of the claimed method. See MPEP § 2111.04.II. In this case, the claim does not require the condition precedent (i.e., “the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable …”) to be met, which means the step of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate until a project to which the substrate belongs is completed” is not required.
Regarding Claim 3, JUNG teaches the method of claim 2.
As explained above, the claim language of “the liquid treatment operation continues to supply the processing liquid to the substrate until a project to which the substrate belongs is completed” is not a requisite step of the claimed method, which means the claim language of “after the project is finished” is also not a requisite step of the claimed method.
JUNG teaches that the substrate processing apparatus comprises a plurality of supercritical treaters (second process chambers 500, see Fig. 1, ¶ 0056), wherein the substrate may be untransferable if “all second process chambers 500 included in the facility are currently performing the drying process” (see ¶ 0081). But if one of the second process chambers 500 becomes available for receiving the substrate, then the standby step may be omitted (see id.), which means the method proceeds to the transfer operation (see Figs. 4-5, transfer step S400 is performed; see ¶ 0077, in transfer step S400, the substrate is transferred to chamber 500).
Therefore, JUNG teaches or reasonably suggests that: when the substrate is determined to be in a transferable state with respect to a first supercritical treater (i.e., a chamber 500 that is available for receiving the substrate) among the plurality of supercritical treaters, which is different from the supercritical treater to which the substrate is determined to be in the untransferable state (i.e., different from other chambers 500 that are not available for receiving the substrate), the transfer operation transfers the substrate to the first different supercritical treater (see Figs. 4-5, the standby step is omitted and the method proceeds to transfer step S400).
Regarding Claim 11, JUNG teaches the method of claim 1.
JUNG teaches the supercritical treater includes a plurality of supercritical treaters (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0056, a plurality of second process chambers 500), wherein the substrate may be untransferable if “all second process chambers 500 included in the facility are currently performing the drying process” (see ¶ 0081). But if one of the second process chambers 500 becomes available for receiving the substrate, then the standby step may be omitted (see id.), which means the method proceeds to the transfer operation (see Figs. 4-5, transfer step S400 is performed; see ¶ 0077, in transfer step S400, the substrate is transferred to chamber 500).
Therefore, JUNG teaches or reasonably suggests that: the transfer operation (transfer step S400) is performed when selecting a first supercritical treater (see ¶ 0081, a process chamber 500 that is available for receiving the substrate) among the plurality of supercritical treaters, to which the substrate is determined to be in a transferable state (see id.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights